Gender disparity on editorial boards of major urology journals

Nguyen, Anne Xuan-Lan; Zorigtbaatar, Anudari; Bouhadana, David; Deyirmendjian, Claudia; Nguyen, David‐Dan; Cox, Ashley; Bhojani, Naeem

doi:10.5489/cuaj.7690

Cited by 10 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…[8] The top 10% of pulmonologists received 83.7% of all general payments between 2013 and 2021. [3] As shown in previous studies, the healthcare industry made the large amounts of general payments to the small fraction of physicians who are in leading positions such as clinical guideline authors, [7,32,[35][36][37] journal editors, [32,[37][38][39][40] society board members, [32,41] and principal investigators of industry-sponsored clinical trials. [28,42] These influential physicians are called key opinion leaders.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 89%

Industry payments to anesthesiologists in the United States between 2014 and 2022

Murayama

2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundFinancial relationships between physicians and the healthcare industry could be beneficial to improve patient care, but could lead to conflicts of interest. However, there was no study specifically evaluating the extent of financial relationships between anesthesiologists and the healthcare industry in the United States.MethodsUsing the Open Payments Database between 2014 and 2022, this longitudinal cross-sectional study examined the size, prevalence and trends of general (non-research) payments made by the healthcare industry to all anesthesiologists in the United States.ResultsOver the nine-year period, 67.0% of all anesthesiologists received general payments totaling $272.0 million over nine years, while 21.0% to 35.3% of anesthesiologists received one or more general payments each year. Median annual general payments to anesthesiologists ranged from $57 to $115. The top 1%, 5%, and 10% of anesthesiologists received 73.4%, 90.3%, and 94.8% of all general payments, respectively. There were no constant yearly trends in the total amounts and per-anesthesiologist general payments between 2014 and 2019, but significant declines occurred in 2020, likely due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Pain medicine physicians received the highest median general payments of $4,426 in nine-year combined total amounts, followed by addiction medicine ($431), critical care medicine ($277), and general anesthesiology ($256).ConclusionThis study reveals significant financial relationships between the healthcare industry and anesthesiologists, with a disproportionate concentration of payments among a minority of anesthesiologists. While no clear trends in payments were evident before the pandemic, there was a substantial reduction during the COVID-19 outbreak.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 89%

Industry payments to anesthesiologists in the United States between 2014 and 2022

Murayama

2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…1 Gender diversity is becoming an increasingly important matter in the medical field. Indeed, there is a growing body of literature showing that females are underrepresented in urology leadership positions such as in senior academic positions 2 , editorial boards 3 and society conferences 4 . However, there are few studies that examine gender equity in medical associations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender disparity within the Canadian Urological Association

Abou Samra,

Cox,

Bhojani

2023

CUAJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: The aim of this study was to examine gender diversity within the Canadian Urological Association (CUA) and to compare it with the Quebec Urological Association (QUA). Methods: A retrospective review of women’s representation regarding membership, committees’ composition, awards, grants, and conferences between 2012–2022 was performed. Data and gender were extracted from databases and annual meeting programs provided by the CUA and the QUA. Results: In 2022, females accounted for 18% (256/1431) of the membership at the CUA and 23% (52/228) at the QUA. The female proportion of committee members at the CUA increased from 9% (63/676) from 2012–2016 to 14% (177/1230) from 2017–2022 (p≤0.0001). In 2022, the QUA had a significantly higher proportion of female committee members than the CUA, with 39% (15/38) vs. 22% (50/225) women (p=0.0226), respectively. Moreover, from 2012–2022, 11% (5/46) of the CUA awards were given to women, whereas 38% (13/34) of the award winners at the QUA were women over the same time period (p=0.0038). Between 2012 and 2022, there was 16% (20/126) female CUA grant recipients and 44% (14/32) at the QUA (p=0.0095). The proportion of grants awarded to women at the CUA increased from 13% (5/39) in 2012–2016 to 17% (15/87) in 2017–2022.Two percent (1/53) of the plenary invited speakers at the CUA annual meetings from 2012–2016 were women, compared with 21% (14/66) at the QUA annual meetings from 2017–2022 (p=0.0016). Conclusions: Over the past 10 years, there has been an increase in women’s representation at the CUA and the QUA; however, data show that the increase in female representation at the QUA has outpaced that of the CUA.

show abstract

“…As just 1 example, a recently published review of gender disparity on editorial boards of major urology journals shows that only about 12% of editors in 2020 were women. 4 The authors identified some encouraging trends since 2015 so that at least currently these rates approximate the percent of U.S. women urologists. However, a much higher representation, of all equity deserving groups, in academic leadership positions such as editorial boards is required to fortify efforts in bridging the current diversity gaps of our specialty.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%